Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Revolution and the Right Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_revolution_and_the_right#17681 Post contents: A few additional comments with regard to Professor Gottfried's article: In his article, Professor Gottfried stated the following: "The Congressman did not really articulate a foreign policy, as opposed to telling Americans that the war in Iraq and almost all other wars the U.S. has engaged in during my lifetime have been 'unconstitutional.'" Actually, there was no other candidate -- in either party -- who more clearly articulated an American foreign policy than Congressman Paul. Whereas all of the other GOP candidates were content with mindlessly endorsing neoconservative talking points, and the militarist-imperialist policies of Bush-Cheney, Dr. Paul went beyond just talking about Iraq, Afghanistan and the "Islamo-Fascist" threat. He mentioned -- over and over again -- that it was time that America stopped subsidizing the defence of its wealthy allies and brought its troops home from Japan, Korea and Europe. He talked about how the economic embargo against Cuba unfairly punished the Cuban people for having a Communist dictatorship, and how it did not make sense -- post-Cold War --for the United States to trade with Communist China, Laos and Vietnam, while at the same time, continuing to ban any travel and trade with Cuba -- all in order to appease a loud ethnic lobby in southern Florida. His foreign policy vision for America was a clear articulation of the Jeffersonian maxim: peace, commerce and friendship with all; entangling alliances with none. In addition, it was a clear articulation of that famous address by John Quincy Adams. When the founding fathers formulated their non-interventionist, armed neutrality foreign policy vision for America, the new republic was far more threatened by foreign powers -- all of whom were imperalistic monarchies opposed to the republican vision -- than the United States is today. The "Islamo-fascists" are no threat to do anything more -- in either America, Canada or Western Europe -- than sporadic terrorist bombings, and even that is preventable if the Western countries finally move away from their lax immigration and multicultural policies. Finally, Ron Paul was right to state that all of the post-World War Two military interventions by the United States have been unconstitutional, as the Constitution clearly delegates war-making powers to Congress (as the direct representatives of the American people). Thus, according to the Constitution, only the American people can decide when and where their country will wage war; not powerful lobbyists in Washington beholden to foreign powers, nor an omniscient and omnipotent imperial president. Republican voters may be "instinctive American nationalists," but increasingly, they have taken this "nationalism" beyond natural pariotism and support for a strong national defence to unwavering, unthinking support for the Great Leader -- "Red State Fascism," as articulated in numerous articles on the excellent website, LewRockwell.com. Thus, as per Bush-Cheney, they continue to support an undeclared, unconstitutional war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists (Saddam was a staunch secular-socialist hated by radical jihadists), and was a Third World basketcase with no "weapons of mass destruction." Instead of looking at the hard facts as it relates to the situation in Iraq, the Red-State fascists, that now comprise the GOP base, are content with equating "patriotism" with mindless support for the Great Leader, and all of the propaganda coming from the White House and their minions in the so-called "mainstream media." Thus, the responsibility rests, not with Dr. Paul in his failure to connect with such a close-minded audience, but with that audience's own myopia and uneducated view of the real world. Ron Paul never "blamed America" for 9/11. He strongly supported using military force to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and the other leaders of his criminal organization. He just didn't think it made sense to squander thousands of American lives -- along with hundreds of billions of dollars -- in order to engage in "nation-building" and occupying countries that had nothing to do with the initial terrorist attack. Unfortuntely, since the Great Leader disagreed, so too did the GOP base, and thus, they visciously turned against Ron Paul; despite his conservative positions on so many other topics (abortion, immigration, taxes, federalism, the economy). To the GOP voters, all that mattered was killing as many Arabs and Muslims as possible. Therefore, Ron Paul lost and now John McCain is poised to lead the Republican Party to glorious defeat in November. Speaking of John McCain, McCain likes to present himself as a hawk in the “war” against so-called “radical Islamic extremism.” However, he isn’t just one of those Republicans who suddenly went insane after 9/11. In fact, when Bill Clinton was president, McCain strongly supported all of Clinton’s wars; in both Bosnia and in Kosovo. During a time when Republicans actually sounded like members of the Old Right in their opposition to overseas interventionism and “nation-building,” supported an America First foreign policy and weren’t maniacally obsessed with bombing Middle Easterners, McCain was such a hawk—with regard to the former Yugoslavia—that he actually wanted the Clinton administration to go beyond aerial bombings and put “more boots on the ground” in favour of the Muslims against the Christian Serbs. Therefore, far from being a warrior against “radical Islamic extremism,” McCain has a long track record of supporting Islam against Christianity. Perhaps this might explain why he has said nothing about the plight of Iraq’s Christian community and the brutal manner in which they have been driven out from their ancient homeland; thanks to the U.S. invasion and occupation, and the subsequent American arming of various sectarian Islamic groups. Far from being a steely-eyed realist—as he likes to portray himself to his supporters and fawning admirers in the “mainstream media”—McCain is actually among the worst of the neo-Wilsonian neoconservatives. He is a gleaming-eyed messianic democratist who supports war and massive American intervention, anywhere and everywhere. Sent at: 2008 05 16